;:
'
REMARKS BY
MICHAEL
J.CLINTON, CHfEF
COLORADO
RIVER
WATER
QUALITY
OFFICE
WATER
AND POWER RESOURCES
SERVICE
BEFORE ANNUAL MEETING
OF COLORADO
· ·
RIVER
WATER
USERS ASSOCIATION
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA.
T
O BE RELEASED
10 A.M., THURSDAY, DECEMBER
11,
1980.
AN UPDATE
ON
SALINITY PROGRAMS
Old friends- and new- it's a pleasure to visit with all of you today._ I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the 37th annual meeting of this group dedicated to safeguarding what has been called the hardest working river in the United States.
The portrait that will be unfolding before you in the next couple of days is that of a portrait of life . a gift of life . . . from this mighty river to some 29 million people. Of course, life is not without its concerns, and one of the major concerns with the Colorado River is controll.ing its chemical quality, salinity. I would like to share with you some of the insights we have gained in our efforts to improve the quality of the river's water. Those insights will include a description of the salinity concepts, some of the progress that is being achieved and last, but of most concern to you, some of the constraints and issues that are impeding efforts to control the river's salinity.
First, for benefit of those in the audience who are less familiar with the salinity control program, let me give you a little background on the nature and magnitude of the salinity problem. The Colorado flows through one of the most arid regions of this continent; thus, evaporation from the river and reservoirs is considerable. Also, because of the lack of rainfall, salts have not been weathered out of the rocks and soil and as the water passes through those soils, salts are being washed into the streams. Add to that
the new salts picked up each time man diverts water for irrigation, export, or M&I use, and you have the river carrying about 10 million tons of salt per year by the time it reaches lake Mead.
Under current conditions of development, that salt is diluted in the river's long-time average annual lee Ferry flow of about 11 million acre-feet per year (1979). Today, the annual salinity concentration at Imperial Dam is about B10 mg/l. In the future, because of increasing uses, the river's modest annual flow will fall far short of diluting that salt load. It has been predicted that continued growth in the Colorado River Basin and add i-·tional use of the river's water will increase the salinity concentration at
Imperial Dam to about 1140 mg/l by the year 2000. At higher salinity levels, farmers produce less at higher costs in fields damaged by salinity, and in the urban areas it means more corroded pipes and plumbing facilities. We estimate that without salinity control, the increase in damages in the agricultural and municipal sectors could r~ach $180 million per year under future conditions.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974 established public policy and objectives for water quality management in the basin. For example, under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, salinity standards along the lower main stem have been set at the 1972 level with B79 mg/l, the representative standard, at Imperial Dam. In other ~tords, the overal l goal is to maintain lower Basin river
salinity at or below the 1972 historical levels while the Basin states continue to develop compact-apportioned waters. To attain this goal, it is estimated that about 2.B million tons of salt per year must be removed from
Title I of the 1974 Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act has enabled the United States to deliver water of an acceptable quality to the Republic of
Mexico. The combination of a large-scale desalting plant being constructed
near Yuma, Arizona, and agricultural water use efficiency improvements will assure that water delivered to Mexico will not exceed the concentrations
allowed under the agreement.
Title II of the 1974 Act authorizes construction of certain salinity control
measures in the Basin above Imperial Dam. In addition, Public law 96-375
authorizes feasibility study of other irrigation, point, and diffuse sources that are targeted for controlling upstream salinity. Irrigation source
control reduces salt loading by improving irrigation practices that currently
leach salt from marine shales. The Grand Valley and the lower Gunniso·n Units in Colorado, the Uinta Basin Unit in Utah, and the Palo Verde Irrigation
District Unit in California are irrigation sources under evaluation.
Improve-ment of irrigation practices should reduce the river's salt load by about
1.0 million tons per year.
Diffuse and point source control units should reduce the river's salt load by an additional 1.8 million tons per year. Point source control removes salt
from localized areas such as mineral springs, abandoned oil wells, and
geysers. The Paradox Valley, Glenwood-Dotsero Springs, and Meeker Dome Units
in Colorado; laVerkin Springs, Utah; lower Virgin River, Arizona and Nevada Units; and the las Vegas Wash Unit in Nevada are point sources currently under study. Diffuse source control involves watershed management, land
treatment, and the collection and disposal of irrigation return flows. Utah's Dirty Devil, Price, and San Rafael Rivers; McElmo Creek in Colorado;
\
and Wyoming's Big Sandy River are identified diffuse sources. Investigations of diffuse source units are underway which are examining a combination of·
irrigation improvements, vegetation and watershed management, and selective withdrawal of poor quality streamflow.
With that background, I would like to describe .some of the progress that is being made on both the authorized construction units as well as the
feasibil-ity investigations that are underway.
In the Grand Valley of west-central Colorado, a construction start has
finally been achieved. Water and salt budgets indicate that the Grand Valley Unit can prevent 410,000.tons of salt annually from entering the river by lining canal and lateral distribution systems and irrigation management techniques. To assure that our concepts and theories are sound, we are implementing the controls in an area which comprises about 10 percent of the valley. A $7.4 million contract for lining the 6.8-mile-long section of the .Government Highline Canal was awarded to Peter Kiewit Sons in August of this
year. Although the canal lining contract calls for completion by August 1983, the contractor has indicated his intent to complete the canal lining in early 1981. Furthermore, specifications for closed pipe laterals are being written and that contract should be awarded in mid-1g81, with comple-tion of the pipe laterals in about 2 years. Following a 1-year monitoring period to verify results in the test area, construction in the rest of Grand Valley is expected to begin in fiscal year 1985.
The Paradox Valley in southwestern Colorado contributes about 205,000 tons of salt to the river each year through several springs in the Dolores Riverbed and brine seeps along the Dolores River. The plans for this unit include
establishing a ground water interception well field near the river which
would remove the brine before it reached the riverbed. Preliminary pumping
results look very positive as the wells appear to be intercepting more than
three-fourths of the brine inflow. Disposal of the brine is the next step. Alternative plans for this disposal are three-fold: pump it to an
evapora-tion pond, inject it into a deep well, or put it into a pipeline collector
system where the saline water will be used for energy development. An
.
architectural/engineering contract to determine the feasibility of deep well injection is scheduled for award in January 1g81. Collection and disposal of the brine is expected to begin removing about 180,000 tons of salt per year
within the next few years, the· actual time frame depending upon the brine
disposal mechanism that is most cost-effective and environmentally acceptable.
After a delay of a couple of years, things are also beginning to happen on the Las Vegas Wash Unit. The Las Vegas Wash, a natural drainage channel traversing the Las Vegas Valley discharges approximately 208,000 tons of dissolved solids annually. In the past, this salt load was largely caused by
industrial and wastewater disposal into unlined evaporation ponds. Because
of EPA enforcement efforts, those flows are now disposed of into lined ponds. As a result, the saline ground water under unlined pond areas began dissi-pating and construction of this unit was delayed until further ground water study is completed. Our data collection activities are now nearly complete and it appears that a joint venture for wetlands preservation, nutrient management, and salinity control may offer significant advantages. We see
five possible components for solving the Las Vegas Wash problem: bypass
cooling or other industrial uses; reduce sewage treatment volume by conser -vation; find ways to use a part of the wash in a greenbelt mode for sewage
treatment; and more effectively use the nutrient dispersal potentials in lake
Mead. We plan to reconstitute our planning team with the intent of achieving
a coordinated plan by spring of 1981.
With regard to other studies, Title II of the 1974 Act instructed the Secretary
to expedite completion of planning reports on various units. Recognizing the
progress of these studies, on October 3, 1980, the Congress authorized
feasibility reports on 10 of the units. The authorized investigations are essentially on schedule, with reports due in the next 2 years on the lower
Gunnison, Uinta Basin, and lower Virgin River Units.
I would like to point out one last and very significant area of progress.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity1Control Forum, established in 1973 by the
governors of the Basin states to develop a strategy for controlling levels of
~alinity in the Colorado River, has decided to actively pursue its continuing
commitment to the salinity control program by hiring an Executive Director.
That action will focus the part-time advocacy of seven ·states with the
primary purpose of keeping the lines of communication functioning between the
many Federal, state, and local entities involved in this complex program. I
would like to congratulate the Forum for its selection of
Mr.
Jack A. Barnettas its first Executive Director. located in Salt lake City, Jack, former
Executive Director of the Western States Water Council, will provide a strong
and continuous voice for this program that has near unanimous support throughout
..
At this stage of the salinity control program, we have gone far enough down
the path of implanentation to see some of the roadblocks that need to be overcome. Three main areas of concern have been identified. Let's take a
minute to review those concerns and discuss how local, state, and Federal entities are working together to resolve them. · ·
First, we are concerned about the funding and coordination of the Department of Agriculture's salinity control programs. Essential to achieving the water quality objectives set by legislation is the cost-sharing program of onfarm
salinity control work such as that begun in the Grand Valley Unit, Colorado,
and the Uinta Basin Unit in Utah. However, funding for these programs is not sufficient to accomplish the program in reasonable time and cost-sharing limitations are discouraging some participants. Demonstration and fine -tuning of new irrigation managanent technologies in these unique geographic settings is also needed. We feel that the importance of the onfarm program
to the overall sal inity control effort is such that it should be funded and
managed to reflect its unique nature. The various Department of Agriculture
agencies now appear to be taking a more coordinated approach to the Title II
programs and with continued assistance and support by the states, congressional delegations, and local farmers, the present difficulties should be overcome.
The second area of concern is the need for fish and wildlife mitigation; that
is, the creation or preservation of wildlife habitats and wetlands to replace
those lost as a result of canal 1 ining and irrigation improvenents. As many of y~u are aware, some of the most important wetland habitat in the Colorado
River Basin have been created because of the presence of seepage from
irriga-tion systems. Those resources are essentially a windfall benefit of irriga
f
.
.
-
,
should
be
used to preserve those artificially created habitats through a mitigation program. It is my belief that if mitigation programs do notproceed, local acceptance for the irrigation source control units will
significantly diminish. Therefore, a new approach to mitigation for
artifi-cially created wetlands and wildlife habitats must be identified·. Toward that end, discussions are underway between representatives of state and ~
Federal agencies to determine if a compromise approach can be found.
Our third concern which, by the way, is probably the biggest threat to
ultimate control of Colorado River salinity, is brine disposal. Present
studies indicate that the point and diffuse source units generate about
300,000 acre-feet per year of saline water containing 1.8 million tons of salt that will need to be collected for disposal. Desalting_plants or evaporation ponds appear to be environmentally and economically unsatis-factor3 methods for disposal except in special circumstances. Also, the
waste of such a large volume of water would be a travesty in the semiarid southwest. Recent technological develops are leading us to believe that this brine is a potential resource. Consequently, we are now studying the possi-bility of using it for energy development purposes such as cooling coal-fired powerplants and as a transport media for coal-slurry pipelines. Water .and Power expects to complete an appraisal study of these potential uses by summer of 1981. Public involvement meetings have been conducted with state representatives, energy, and environment a_l interests, and feedback has been
generally positive. In support of that concept, the states acting through
the Salinity Control Forum recently adopted a policy encouraging industrial use of saline water through financial and regulatory incentives.
.
•
In summary, I would like to point out that the objectives and control strate-gies that were approved by the Congress in the 1974 Act continue to bepolitically and technically sound. Things are starting to happen on a trial basis and critical concerns are now well enough defined to be addressed. It appears that, in the long term, energy related use of saline water may hold the key to successful implementation of the point and diffuse source units. In the short term, the agricultural source units appear to have the best technical and economic potential. Early resolution of both the fish and wildlife mitigation as well as the funding, technical support, and
coordina-tion issues for onfarm salinity control programs will clear the way toward early completion of the agricultural source units.
01 iver Wendell Holmes once said, "A river is more than an amenity- it is a treasure, it offers a necessity of life that must be rationed wisely. among those who have power over it." Those of us charged with responsibility for management of the majestic Colorado River have seen the· bigger picture .
and recognize that team effort is mandatory if it and we are to survive. We are starting to see the results of that team effort, and it is being translated into accomplishment of a task many said couldn't be done.
